Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 13 2018,09:52) | | Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 13 2018,17:17) | | Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 13 2018,09:16) | | Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 13 2018,09:14) | | Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 13 2018,09:11) | | Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 13 2018,09:01) | | Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 13 2018,08:58) | | Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 13 2018,08:54) | | Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 12 2018,21:43) | | Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2018,21:00) | | none of what I posted has anything to do with creation. |
Post this overwhelming evidence that identifies the "kinds" and describe the barrier which is impossible for a "kind" to evolve across. |
it is NOT up to anyone to demonstrate any barrier exists.
|
Yes it is |
No, it isn't, |
Joe admits he has no evidence for ID-Creationism. |
ID-Creationism only exists in the minds of willfully ignorant evoTARDs.
I have posted plenty of evidence in support of ID- all of which you choked on like a willfully ignorant faggot. |
Joe runs from supporting his claims again. :D |
Yes Intelligent Design is both testable and potentially falsifiable.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
| Quote | 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. |
There you have it- to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems as defined by Intelligent Design.
The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ‘ s Black Box: “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” That is the positive case.
The ATP Synthase is a system that consists of two subsystems-> one for the flow of protons down an electrochemical gradient from the exterior to the interior and the other (a rotary engine) that generates ATP from ADP using the energy liberated by proton flow. These two processes are totally unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective*- meaning there isn’t any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other. Yet here they are.
How is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and integrate them into one. The ordering of separate subsystems to produce a specific effect that neither can do alone. And those subsystems are composed of the ordering of separate components to achieve a specified function.
ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity and also meets the criteria of design.
So the truth is ID is scientific and evolutionism is not. Evos have no idea how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved by means of natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless process
Let the evoTARD ignoring of the evidence continue |
WHAT?
Mud to godz?
Joe you are are OXYMORON. |
Whatever, ke of the scientifically illiterate band.
Thank you for ignoring the science and the evidence, as predicted.
--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton
Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|
